Burden of proof, with a twist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(31-07-2016 02:20 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 02:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Girly is GOD. I AM BOB. .... bitches. ..... wait, did i just say that out loud? ....

Beware. It is the "sacred" "duty" of every SubGenius™ to kill "Bob"® upon meeting him.

Don't worry. He'll recorporate. MWOWM won't let him stay dead, however much "Bob" protests.

I was taught SLACK protected Bob. Without SLACK we are all fucking doomed.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(31-07-2016 02:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 02:20 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Beware. It is the "sacred" "duty" of every SubGenius™ to kill "Bob"® upon meeting him.

Don't worry. He'll recorporate. MWOWM won't let him stay dead, however much "Bob" protests.

I was taught SLACK protected Bob. Without SLACK we are all fucking doomed.

"Bob" is an undeniable fount of SLACK, but that's not what protects him. He's protected by perfect luck. Many a would-be assassin has been foiled because a derailed train or small meteorite set off a rube-goldberg chain of coincidences that somehow stopped the bullet at the last minute, while "Bob" whistles nonchalantly, oblivious to his near demise.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
02-08-2016, 01:50 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
Ok, maybe not a good idea, yet still I wonder why! Perhaps it's because English is not my first language.

I am a militant atheist. I read and listen to discussions between atheists and theists, and experience that when the issue of the burden of proof surfaces, the discussion bogs down, and in my opinion, become a waste of time. The audience is probably falling asleep. They quickly loose any interest and don't give a rats ass about who has the burden. They find the debate BORING!

As I wrote initially, anyone who claims the existence of a divine being assumes the burden of proof to defend it. Just as I would, if I claimed that no Gods exist. We agree about that. So please bear with me and I will attempt to make my point (twist) clearer.

Why would I argue/debate theists? Not to convert my opponent. I wouldn't focus upon my opponent nor would I focus on atheists in the audience. I'd rather have the atheists "Booo" me than applaud. I would intend to loose the debate/argument.(from a logical point of view)

I would focus on the few theists in the audience, who already have an inkling of doubt, and/or those who really don't know the bible.

By assuming the burden (always "for the sake of argument")

I would get to address probabilities.
I would get to cherry pick and argue against the contradictions, the evil and the ridiculousness in the bible.
I would get to expose the theist method of lying by omission. Using the false theist presentation of Darwin's statement about the complexity of the human eye.

I would get to explain the scientific process, what a scientific theory is, and the difference between a theory and a law.
I would get to compare biblical "proof" against scientific theory.
I would get to explain my understanding of evolution and that science is working on something called abiogenesis.

And they can't shut me up. The theist has opened the door wide by allowing me the burden of proof.

I won't have proven anything, but f I can sow a seed of uncertainty in one person - that's all I want.

Did this help?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 03:44 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(02-08-2016 01:50 AM)thonord Wrote:  Ok, maybe not a good idea, yet still I wonder why! Perhaps it's because English is not my first language.

I am a militant atheist. I read and listen to discussions between atheists and theists, and experience that when the issue of the burden of proof surfaces, the discussion bogs down, and in my opinion, become a waste of time. The audience is probably falling asleep. They quickly loose any interest and don't give a rats ass about who has the burden. They find the debate BORING!

As I wrote initially, anyone who claims the existence of a divine being assumes the burden of proof to defend it. Just as I would, if I claimed that no Gods exist. We agree about that. So please bear with me and I will attempt to make my point (twist) clearer.

Why would I argue/debate theists? Not to convert my opponent. I wouldn't focus upon my opponent nor would I focus on atheists in the audience. I'd rather have the atheists "Booo" me than applaud. I would intend to loose the debate/argument.(from a logical point of view)

I would focus on the few theists in the audience, who already have an inkling of doubt, and/or those who really don't know the bible.

By assuming the burden (always "for the sake of argument")

I would get to address probabilities.
I would get to cherry pick and argue against the contradictions, the evil and the ridiculousness in the bible.
I would get to expose the theist method of lying by omission. Using the false theist presentation of Darwin's statement about the complexity of the human eye.

I would get to explain the scientific process, what a scientific theory is, and the difference between a theory and a law.
I would get to compare biblical "proof" against scientific theory.
I would get to explain my understanding of evolution and that science is working on something called abiogenesis.

And they can't shut me up. The theist has opened the door wide by allowing me the burden of proof.

I won't have proven anything, but f I can sow a seed of uncertainty in one person - that's all I want.

Did this help?

Not so sure what it is you seek. Like debates of these types exist but any theist atheist debate in public are weirdly organized and rare. But in general, there's no one size fits all way minds get altered.

The position of showcasing skepticism through ideas like a burden of proof idea Is as well a thing that lingers or opens a doubt for some people. It's not a bore to all even those already partially doubtful.

Well a bunch of theists or anyone may find a slew of scientific realities a boring conversation and something to not take as any more real than a theist claims. There's no far more united sense of one or the other being the more disregarded boring concept.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 06:17 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(02-08-2016 01:50 AM)thonord Wrote:  By assuming the burden (always "for the sake of argument")

I would get to address probabilities.
I would get to cherry pick and argue against the contradictions, the evil and the ridiculousness in the bible.
I would get to expose the theist method of lying by omission. Using the false theist presentation of Darwin's statement about the complexity of the human eye.

I would get to explain the scientific process, what a scientific theory is, and the difference between a theory and a law.
I would get to compare biblical "proof" against scientific theory.
I would get to explain my understanding of evolution and that science is working on something called abiogenesis.

You can do all that in response to theistic claims made to support their burden of proof.

Quote:And they can't shut me up. The theist has opened the door wide by allowing me the burden of proof.

I won't have proven anything, but f I can sow a seed of uncertainty in one person - that's all I want.

Did this help?

I'm not so interested in their not being able to shut me up as my being able to show them that they need to stop making claims that aren't valid. That can sow the same seed of uncertainty.

If you grant the existence and then question the details you are raising small points to be addressed. If you question the existence at all you present a much higher bar to be cleared.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
03-08-2016, 04:29 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
Thanks for answers. This thread is finished. I will not be following it longer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 04:46 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(03-08-2016 04:29 AM)thonord Wrote:  Thanks for answers. This thread is finished. I will not be following it longer.

This thread isn't finished until I say it is finished!
Cool

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
04-08-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
(03-08-2016 04:46 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 04:29 AM)thonord Wrote:  Thanks for answers. This thread is finished. I will not be following it longer.

This thread isn't finished until I say it is finished!
Cool

Darn! Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes thonord's post
04-08-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: Burden of proof, with a twist.
Religious belief is not a matter of arguments / reason. They have (a priori) abandoned reason. It's a psychological state in which they allow the compartmentalization of the cognitive dissonances they encounter. It's not about science, or history or logic. It's about phycology.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: